Wikipedia:Editor review/kbthompson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] kbthompson

kbthompson (talk · contribs) I have been a registered user for approximately a year. It is time to accept brickbats and consider if I need to change my own behaviour. I hope to learn from this process, so please be constructive and offer alternatives. To tempt you, I have recently been accused of unnecessary sarcasm and malicious editing - although most of the later has been on attempting to perform recent edit patrol to identify vandalism. Kbthompson 14:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

  • Well, first of all , you've quite a lot of edits here. I noticed that you're a very active vandal fighter too. Its nice to see that you are using the edit summaries. Keep up the good work, I see you're sticking to your field well. Cheers! Zacharycrimsonwolf 14:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Consistent and concise use of edit summaries. Has an obvious commitment to using a variety of good quality citations. Produces high quality and succinct prose and avoids introducing assertions (a rare skill amongst editors). Friendly participation in Wikiproject work including assessment tagging. Appears to have a thorough understanding of Wikipedia policies. More of the same please. MRSC • Talk 15:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Excellent technical skills and analysis of what needs to be done to improve articles. Also, extremely productive. I think that sometimes in your responses to people, you try to use humour, but unfortunately, on the computer, it is often difficult to detect a light tone, and people may find the comments sarcastic or take offense (and lots of people on WP are very sensitive). So, even though it is not as much fun, I recommend a more straight forward approach on talk pages. Also, and this may be a U.S./UK difference, I sometimes find your prose a bit cryptic or poetic, and in an encyclopedia article intended to be read worldwide (even if the subject is a London subject) by people who may not have the same educational background as you, perhaps a more simplistic expository style is better. It is admirable that you are requesting this review, and I hope you find the comments helpful. -- Ssilvers 16:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments

  • I have noticed a huge cultural difference over the use of the English language between English and American editors of the wikipedia. English people use irony as a matter of course. If the wikipedia claims to be a universal encyclopedia and not merely a reflection of American cultural norms then some latitude should be given for different stylistics on the Talk Pages: otherwise it is just American cultural imperialism at work. See British humour for further elucidation Colin4C 19:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I take ssilvers comments on board, but also try to achieve some balance between the two modes. I think the notion of American cultural imperialism is overblown, it implies a concerted plot, on the other hand I shall continue to attempt to teach an appreciation of the gentle art of irony. Kbthompson 12:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
      • In some instances on the wikipedia I feel as if I am engaged in a dialogue of the deaf. What is worse I wonder, 'irony' or a pedantic humourless chippiness? The latter mode does not have any greater truth value, though no doubt it is the approved method of management control freaks to browbeat underlings who get 'uppity'. Colin4C 12:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably not the place for this more general discussion! Let's get back to talking about me! Kbthompson 15:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    General editing and expansion of the articles on London theatre. Getting East End of London through to GA, and hope to get it to FA. Attempting to co-operate with other editors on WPLondon to expand and improve the quality of articles on London.
  2. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
    Yes, London Borough of Camden. My crime, to add cleanup, neutral and tone to an extremely PoV article, and request that the article conform to policies in the talk page. The result, really quite vicious personal attacks on everyone who chose to get involved. Reported to WP:ANI. What would I do in the future - probably go straight to ANI!

Additionals from Dfrg.msc:

Borrowed from Glen (talk · contribs), I'm sure he wont mind. These should test you editing skills, and show if you have any weaknesses which you can work on. So, just write your answer next to the Question. Good luck.

It's a little manic, as I have no claim to experience in the area, however in the interests of completing a purely academic exercise ...

Speedy Delete or not:

  1. CSD1 - Eton Road are possibly notable for their appearance, the article as stands needs development, or to be merged back into the group page.
  2. CSD2 - the company exists, but there is no assertion as to notability. Unless this is dealt with, it probably counts as WP:SPAM.
  3. CSD3 - again, no assertion as to notability.
  4. CSD4 - eh, patent nonsense.
  5. CSD5 - their claim to notability is their own website, no other refs come up in google. Self promotion, come back when there are more media refs!

Vandalism or or not:

again, not my area of expertise ... (nor one I would wish to develop, I think my daughter had pokemon cards, but now she claims to be a nuclear physicist, perhaps she would be embarrassed by the memory)
  1. [1] - perhaps most surprising is that there is such a category, but it doesn't appear to be this individual. If in doubt, ask for a cite - this is just an unsupported assertion. It could be a good faith edit, but should be reverted.
  2. [2] - as mud ... it doesn't even make sense in context. Revert ...
  3. [3] - just revert
  4. [4] - having read the talk page (and not found the contesting argument), I wouldn't touch this with a barge pole! No, it's not vandalism, robust discussion.
  5. [5] - probably vandalism, might have some arcane meaning in the world of pokemon.
  6. [6] - doesn't make sense in the context of saying that nothing is quite so defenceless, the statement may be good faith, but if I had to, I'd probably revert.

Have fun! Dfrg.msc 07:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the new map at the top of the Wards in the City of London category are better.Bashereyre 17:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)